Template talk:First Haven-Manticore War
The idea is to have this box inserted into the "battle" template, at the bottom, so you can jump to other battles in that conflict. Jabrwock 15:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) : I opt for moving operations above the battles, thus they are more general stuff. Or even better idea - horizontal layout operation/battles. The question is also, if Manticoran no name offensives like counteroffensive of 1905 (3rd Yeltsin, Chelsea, Mendoza) and Trevor's Star offensive (Nightingale, TS) should be counted here.--dotz 19:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ::Agreed on ops above battles. The reason I formatted it vertically was for easy inclusion in the bottom of the "Battle" template. It could be tinkered with though, so it fits "100%" of the available width, allowing it to fill out to the edges of the "battle" template, or in the case of instances (where it's used on operations pages), the entire width of the page. Jabrwock 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ::I have no issue with unofficially named operations/offensives/counteroffensives, as long as they are discussed in the books as being all part of the same operational maneuver. Simply "all battles in 1905 PD" isn't enough, it needs to be an obvious series of battles towards a goal (like White Haven's offensive to take Trevor's Star). And I thought 3rd Yeltsin/Chelsea/Mendoza was a Havenite op (Stalking Horse/Dagger) Jabrwock 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) :::While battle part shortly will be overloaded with battles I suggest to cut off small outside major operation battles (eg. Selker's Rift-like).--dotz 20:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) :::...or really connect battles with operation and keep minor battles separated.--dotz 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC) width Ideally we could make it "100%" width, and then it would fill the space given to it. So if it was part of a battle template (for all battles that were part of the 1st war), it would only be as wide as the battle template. If it were on a page by itself, it would stretch to fill as much as it could. -- Jabrwock 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC) :Sounds good to me! -- SaganamiFan 15:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Sorting Operations? How about sorting the Operations according to fraction, maybe like this: |- |} I have to admit that I doesn't look very good, because I have no good idea how to keep the chronological order.--Bravomike 16:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) :Logical - may be with different colours?--dotz 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) That would be great, but I have no idea how it works with the different skins. For example, I use standard monobook (I think) and so my wiki looks totally different than someone's who uses another skin, including the colors.--Bravomike 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting battles # Important battles (eg. occured during operations) - in bold? # ? the Air incident PNS Rienzi vs HNS L'Imperieuse and vs HMS Ajax?--dotz 10:40, December 30, 2009 (UTC) HMS Ajax - Air Incident - double battle. Should be there. --dotz 05:57, January 10, 2010 (UTC) ad hoc operation in the Cerberus System * destruction of Tepes and two shuttles * assault on Charon * Shilo Force takover * Battle of Cerberus --dotz 20:21, July 15, 2010 (UTC) Lacking battles * One Theisman vs Zilwicka (wave to Grendelsbane)--dotz 20:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC) * all first battles in the systems that were lost during Thunderbird (eg. first Maastricht). --dotz 20:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Some operation South flank of the Alliance - securing Grendelsbane - first Solway and Treadway (post HH5/HH9), Adm. Hemphill commanding (TF Grendelsbane + Erewhon?) --dotz 20:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Seaford Nine Ambush This is currently the #1 most wanted page, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what it refers to. As far as I can tell, the only reason it is so highly wanted is that it is included in the First Manticore-Haven War template, because I can find no reference to it outside of the template's inclusion. Based on it's location in the template, it happened prior to First Hancock. But as far as I know from the books, the only reason Seaford Nine is mentioned prior to First Hancock is because that is where Adm. Rollins and whoever else was stationed prior to launching First Hancock. I can find no mention of an ambush. --Shinyfan 19:15, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :Two RMN CL? pickets destroyed by Havenite cruisers (PNS Napoleon). Stuff described with details at SITS materials (SB1?). --dotz 19:50, November 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Ahh, okay, found it. (HH3, ch. 29) I don't know that I'd characterize it as an ambush worthy of its own page, so much as the opening moments of Hancock, which is why it didn't really stick out. --Shinyfan 19:56, November 25, 2011 (UTC) :::Pickets and ambush occured in proximity of S9. In terms of astrography (LY) and engaged forces Hancock was quite diffrent matter. SITS staff's opinion is similar. --dotz 21:20, November 26, 2011 (UTC)